From the birth of economic theory, the labor factor was placed at the heart of the scholars, because by nature, but also by historical data, possessed a character with a huge reserve of liquidity of intent. Top specimen, the theoretical confrontation between Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus , on the outcome of these intentions. The Scottish philosopher distinguished himself in increasing the workforce the main cause of even greater profits accumulation. For Malthus on the contrary, this expansion triggered a demographic bomb, ready to dismantle the new capitalist architecture in the exons. Only a few years later, in the mid-19th century, the emergence of Marxist theory gave a new dimension to the issue: in the context of dialectical materialism, the workers’ proletariat , he set his stature against the capitalists, leading things to an inevitable battle for his spiritual fathers, after which capitalism would forever retreat from the economic and wider historical background. Here too, a first major conclusion is revealed: for the classical political economy, the “work” factor has a strictly technical role within the system. Indeed, this role, related to the division of labor, imparts the particular local characteristics that distinguish sectorally, geographically, or even comparatively the production of a product or service. Marxists, on the contrary, face the job as if it had no qualitative or quantitative contribution to the economic circuit. They simply place it at the opposite of the capitalists. They equip her for the inevitable conflict with them and await vindication. This view is natural to be devoid of scientific basis and better of all – in the writer’s opinion – Karl Popper . However, this is the reason why Marxist theory bases its models on countless armies of industrial workers and fails to include factors such as the liberal professions in its norms.
But if one studies in depth the history of capitalism, we discern that the role of the tenant s work, As a specialized or not, is purely practical and seems to have starring position those early heroic days of the two major industrial revolutions. And perhaps even worse, this role was not even a prominent role, but a necessity, technically necessary: one had to light fire in the cauldrons, so that the Victorian fugitives, to “produce” ample innovation, to impose new techniques of product performance and promotion. To create new perceptions, morals and attitudes. To devise and consolidate a new culture.
The fate of the tenure of the early 20th century was fateful. And it would have already been cleared if the “Centuries of Empires” dignitaries did not lead to the thirty-year-long pan-European and global carnage of the two great wars. Moreover, among them the 1929 financial crisis erupted and brought the system to its imperfections. Thus the postwar economy was based again in paid employment, as the model of the social state, healing τηε huge wounds of war and despite were producing countless provisions for entire societies, required for granted, undisturbed and clear structures in the economic field. Besides, the technology still had tremendous limitations.
However, the years have passed, technology has grown swiftly, and particularly the communications industry has swept away the latest border blemishes after the demolition of the Berlin Wall. And that was the focal point: the shifting of the global labor division to the east. Why ; because in the West after 40 or 50 years of social state, the working class was now denatured in the middle. Its cost is now expensive. Or to put it more correctly, the product produced does not correspond to its cost. How innovative and creative can one of the thousands of employees of a huge multinational be? How much added value can add to the finished product? Almost zero. And how much does this employee cost? Far above zero. Also, the qualitative content of this labor cost should be considered: Confidence, additional benefits, possible social development or accreditation.
However, the system has at its core the concept of private initiative, combined with innovation. The world has changed and redirected infinitely by an idea, an invention of the moment. The computer, telephone, airplane, and even advanced sports shoes were designed and tested in garages, warehouses and beaches. Never on demand and never on the basis of a plan. And it may not be perceptible, but the risk and uncertainty that all the pioneers have accepted has led us today to a life that is dramatically safer and better than what we can collect 50 years ago.
What is the ending? The system can not be loaded with extra mass work. Its expertise reached its limits, and together the current economic model reached its own theoretical and practical extremes. The economic crisis that surrounds us states this in the most clear way. The cheap money flowing into the markets from the mid-1990s to the end of 2007 was fatal to push even more people into the security of wage labor. Especially when the specialization became temptingly accessible to the middle classes (while at the same time degrading in the most vulgar and ridiculous way the concept of university education) while the bonus and the additional benefits (rain-snowing as it turned out) shook the fees in uranium sizes. Thus, entrepreneurship has stalled and innovation was left to the multinationals, exhausted in a new gadget every two years. The system hurt, but no one wanted to hear it rejecting the certainty of the monthly salary. And who did this salary produce? The astonishing and ultimately stinging entrepreneurship.
These are strictly the only ones in the private sector. One can guess how atrophic and problematic the Public Sector is now becoming. Because the supposed added value it generates, mainly in the form of services, is heavily funded by the already deficient resources of the weak private sector. It is extremely simple: When research and development can not be funded (privately), can they raise funds to maintain a state that far exceeds the basic needs of a modern man? Why should not we forget that: Public is not just the payroll of employees and the payment of pensions. They are subsidies, grants, tax breaks, allowances, discounts, regulations, and especially regulatory frameworks and bans. All of these are valued and added together in monetary value.
The future is uncertain and the era of modernity full of contingencies and probabilities uncharted. One thing is for sure: “Reliability” is maintenance. And – of all kinds and forms – Crisis, a crossroads for repositioning and review. The future is ahead of us and needs our ideas and risks to be conquered.